This section provides a discussion of the data used and the methodology selected for this study. First, the population is presented and various data resources discussed. The need for additional information is examined and the subsequent survey used to collect the data is presented. A description of the variables is provided. Finally, the hypotheses are presented, along with the models used to test the hypotheses and an explanation of the variables employed in the study.
Data Selection
This study uses cross-sectional data drawn from the member libraries of the ARL. ARL, founded in 1932, is a not-for-profit organization comprised of the largest research libraries in the United States and Canada. Membership is granted only after an extensive application process and documentation of comparable levels of funding and resources. ARL libraries represent an elite group of research libraries. ARL data are frequently utilized in studies on issues pertaining to academic libraries (see, for example, Park & Riggs, 1993). The prevalence of ARL studies is fostered both by the prominent role these libraries play in the academic library community and because of the
presence of an extensive amount of institutional data collected on an annual basis.
The original 42 founding institutions were expanded to 72 in 1962.
Subsequent changes to the bylaws have allowed other members to join.
Member libraries include both public and private university and research collections. The original 1932 constitution stated that ‘‘the object shall be, by cooperative effort, to develop and increase the resources and usefulness of the research collections in American libraries’’ (George & Blixrud, 2002).
While ARL has adjusted its mission over the years, the overall focus of the organization has never strayed substantively from that expressed in the original constitution. As such, ARL represents member libraries but not librarians or librarianship per se. As of 2004, ARL has 122 members (Association of Research Libraries, 2004b).
Membership in ARL is based on a membership criteria index. Annually, data on five key areas are collected from ARL libraries: volumes held, volumes added (gross), current serials, total library expenditures, and total professional and support staff (ARL, 2004). Principal component analysis is conducted on the 35 remaining founding ARL members. Weights for each of the five data elements are obtained from this analysis. Data from each ARL library are used along with these weights to develop the annual membership criteria index. This index essentially ranks ARL member libraries and is widely reported in the higher education literature each year (Stubbs, 1980). It is known as the ARL Membership Criteria Index and is computed each year by ARL. (Data from this index were used for the ARL1 variable, discussed below.) The index is also used to evaluate potential new member libraries.
This study includes all U.S. university and college libraries that held membership in ARL during the years 1989 through 1998 for a total of 98 institutions. Due to variations in institutional cultures, Canadian libraries are not included in this study. Institutional and library-specific data for these 98 institutions were collected from the print versions of The ARL Annual Salary Survey and The ARL Statistics, both published annually by ARL.
These data are also available online through the University of Virginia’s Alderman Library’s GeoStat Center (http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/arl/).
Survey of ARL Libraries
While published sources provided needed data on variables such as the size of the staff and collections, average starting salaries, and the annual budget,
they did not provide critical information on the presence of tenure track library faculty or unionization. To collect these data, a survey was developed that asked seven questions:
Do librarians at your institution have traditional faculty rank and status?
For the period 1989–1998, were librarians eligible for tenure at your library?
For the period 1989–1998, were librarians included in a collective bargaining unit or union?
Are librarians at your institution required to have an additional advanced degree for appointment at the entry level?
Do librarians at your institution have research requirements similar to the academic/teaching faculty?
For the period 1989–1998, how would you rate the research requirements for librarians at your institution?
A complete version of the survey is included in the appendix. The survey was approved by the Mississippi State University’s Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research prior to distribution.
The survey employs a definition of tenure, drawn from the 1987 policy entitled ‘‘Model Statement of Criteria Procedures for Appointment, Promotion in Academic Rank, and Tenure for College and University Librarians’’ (ACRL, 1987). This statement defines tenure as ‘‘an institu- tional commitment to permanent and continuous employment y tenure (continuous employment) shall be available to all librarians and in accordance with the tenure provisions of all faculty of the institution’’
(p. 223). Respondents were asked to use this definition of tenure as the basis for their answers to the survey questions. Questions concerning both tenure and unionization allowed the respondent to specify any variation in status for the library during the time period under study (1989–1998) but none indicated a change in status.
The survey was administered to the dean or director of the library via e-mail in the fall of 2001. It was administered to the 98 ARL institutions who were members as of 1998. Two follow-up e-mails were sent to solicit additional responses. ARL libraries are some of the most studied, and surveyed, libraries in the world. Care was taken to ensure a high return rate for the survey. The survey was deliberately short; only data that could not be identified in other sources were solicited. The survey was sent as an e-mail, with the subject line ‘‘Tenure Request’’ and was designed in such a way that respondents could simply ‘‘reply’’ to the e-mail and check off the appropriate answers. A total of 82 surveys were returned. Four of the institutions either
did not have ARL membership throughout the entire 10-year period under examination or returned incomplete surveys and were ultimately removed from the study. A total of 78 usable surveys were returned, for a response rate of 79.5%. A listing of the 78 institutions included in the study may be found inTable 3, according to their geographic location.
Hypotheses
Two hypotheses will be tested in this study. They are
(1) Everything else held constant, the probability an ARL academic library will offer tenure track positions will be greater if a number of institutional characteristics are present: if there is a research expectation as part of the appointment, if the head of the library holds the title of ‘‘Dean,’’ and if the university also supports an ALA-accredited graduate program.
Table 3. Sample ARL Member Institutions by Region.
North Region South Region Midwest Region West Region
Boston University Duke Case Western Reserve Arizona
Columbia Florida Chicago Arizona State
Cornell Georgetown Cincinnati Brigham Young
Dartmouth Georgia Illinois, Chicago California, Berkley
Harvard Georgia Tech Illinois, Urbana California, Davis
Massachusetts Houston Indiana California, Irvine
MIT Howard Iowa California, Los Angeles
New York Johns Hopkins Iowa State California, Riverside
Pittsburg Kentucky Kansas California, San Diego
Princeton Louisiana State Michigan California, Santa Barbara
Rochester Maryland Michigan State Colorado
Rutgers Miami Minnesota Colorado State
SUNY-Albany North Carolina Missouri Hawaii
SUNY-Stony Brook North Carolina State Nebraska New Mexico
Syracuse Oklahoma Northwestern Southern California
Temple Rice Notre Dame Utah
Yale South Carolina Ohio State Washington
Tennessee Southern Illinois
Texas Washington University, St. Louis Texas A&M Wayne State
Tulane Vanderbilt Virginia Virginia Tech
Note:Regional definitions follow U.S. Bureau of the Census conventions.
(2) Tenure-granting ARL libraries will offer lower starting salaries, compared to their non-tenure-granting ARL counterparts, other things held constant.
These hypotheses explore the relationship between tenure and beginning wages for ARL academic librarians.
Variable Selection
As discussed above, studies of compensating wage differentials typically use a number of demographic and job-specific variables. The data used in this study are at the institutional level. Therefore, variables often found in compensating wage differential studies (such as job tenure, education, race, and gender) are not an option. Proxies that measure aspects of the library and the university are used in their place. These include measures of size, staffing, and expenditures.
Study Variables
Table 4lists the variables used throughout the study. The discussion below concerning the two models more clearly defines the variables but further discussion is warranted here. SALARY is the beginning professional salary as reported in the ARL Annual Salary Survey (Association of Research Libraries, 2001, 2004a). ARL instructs member libraries to provide these data on an annual basis, even if no new librarians have been hired and to provide the salary that would be paid to a newly hired professional without experience. LSALARY is the natural logarithm of SALARY.
% PROFESSIONALS reflects the number of professionals employed as a percentage of total library employment. Unlike the ACRL, the professional association of most academic librarians, ARL does not provide a definition of a library professional. Instructions to member libraries leave the definition of a professional up to the member library, stating: ‘‘each library should report those staff members it considers professional, including, when appropriate, staff who are not librarians in the strict sense of the term, for example computer experts, systems analysts, or budget officers’’ (ARL,Instructions, 2003). Data for expenditures (EXPEND) include all sources of funding, including regularly appropriated institutional support, research grants, special projects, gifts, fees, and endowments. The amount reflects actual expenditures and explicitly excludes encumbered but unexpended funds.
Doctoral fields (PHD FIELDS) are also drawn from the published ARL data. ARL instructs member libraries to use the same definition as that employed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) (ARL,Instructions, 2003;National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). The number of instructional faculty (FACULTY) is also based on IPEDS definitions and includes only full- time faculty members.